Wilderness: Mountain bicycle vs Boots. Interesting read.

[Schaaf]

Schaaf, I fully respect your dedication towards keeping our lands in public hands. Heck, we need bulldogs such as Buzz... We also need people able to negotiate - able to identify the future allies in protecting our public lands.

Sytes, I get that. I believe compromise looks more like projects such as the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act.


Nobody got everything they wanted but most walked away more than pleased.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Sure, why boots, horses, mules, lamas - why goats? Why planes and airstrips? Why commercial business? Why bridges and maintained trails? Why game poles installed? As shown, if it causes less erosion than current modes of "visiting"... Why not cycles?

Why because you have to draw a line somewhere and we did it at mechanized vehicles. If there is a spectrum with Boots on one side and Trucks on the other bikes are in the middle and just slightly above where we drew the line.

Lots of backcountry recreationalists fall in multiple groups, I definitely would call myself a mountain biker, and while wearing that hat I'm saying we don't need to be biking in Wilderness. The mountain biking community should be allies with all the other conservation minded groups and I think others bikers need to understand that we can't degrade wilderness by demanding we weaken the rules. What we can do is discuss specific trails, and what can be done to allow access or where in the future to draw wilderness area boundaries to make that bike access to a popular trail isn't cut off.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Sytes, I get that. I believe compromise looks more like projects such as the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act.

Truly an example of compromise. Unfortunately too often negotiations with special interest groups do not result in compromise, because the special interest perspective typically is "If I don't get what I'm asking for, then there is no compromise."
"So if you get to keep boots, horses, mules, lamas, goats, planes, airstrips, bridges, maintained trails, commercial outfitting services and game poles in the Wilderness ... then I get my mountain bike! I don't care about the history or the western legacy or the reasons for those elements being in the wilderness ... I want mountain biking in the Wilderness ... it's critical to enjoyment of my highly important time on earth!"

 

[BuzzH]

Schaaf, I fully respect your dedication towards keeping our lands in public hands. Heck, we need bulldogs such as Buzz... We also need people able to negotiate - able to identify the future allies in protecting our public lands.

Sure, why boots, horses, mules, lamas - why goats? Why planes and airstrips? Why commercial business? Why bridges and maintained trails? Why game poles installed? As shown, if it causes less erosion than current modes of "visiting"... Why not cycles? Oh wait - no compromise from those already visiting.(?)

Wrong, wilderness advocates already negotiated and gave huge concessions, why are you so hell bent that they negotiate again? There's no reason for it.

How would feel about the 531 million acres that are multiple use, be up for negotiation to keep mountain bikes off that? Or to renegotiate the 5k acre requirement for wilderness consideration to say...500 acres?

Why do you insist that there has to be compromise on already established definitions on less than 1/6th of the public estate?

It makes no sense, unless you're a self serving a-hole that's afraid to walk or ride a horse.

How about the wilderness advocates look to "compromise" with the 531 million acres that aren't designated wilderness for a change? Seems your desire for compromise, 100% of the time, is to take something away from those that value wilderness remaining as its intended.

Never once have I seen you post about the multiple use crowd compromising their 531 million acres to increase Wilderness acreage.

That's curious...but not surprising.

To hell with compromising anymore with regard to wilderness, too many, fought too hard, for too long to get the sliver they did and I wont piss it away because some mountain biker cant find a place to ride his bike outside of wilderness.

 

[rtraverdavis]

Why would denying Wilderness access to mountain bikers diminish said mountain bikers' advocacy for public lands?

 

[Sytes]

Why would denying Wilderness access to mountain bikers diminish said mountain bikers' advocacy for public lands?

One of the leading, if not THE leading character, behind the transfer of Federal lands to the state, Mike Lee. Why? To break the public hands position on our public lands and it's working - slowly but surely. This did not succeed though it generated support. His purpose.

https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/i...es-the-human-powered-travel-in-wilderness-act

 

[BWALKER77]

I say no to Mountain bikers. They do as much damage as dirt bikes do.

 

[Sytes]

Sapphire and Blue Joint wilderness study areas

And the division between boots and cycles continue... I imagine the review process will extend due to the shutdown though up on deck: Sapphire and Blue Joint wilderness study areas.

A great opportunity to unite two growing public land owner groups, squandered. Short sighted. Time will tell.

The Bitterroot National Forest received over 3,100 objections to its decision to exclude mountain bikes from two wilderness study areas in its updated travel plan.

Christensen said the Forest Service had not provided the public an opportunity to comment on its decision to close a little more than 62 miles of trail in the WSAs to mountain bikes when it approved its travel plan update.

Bitterroot Forest Environmental Coordinator Amy Fox said the objections are being reviewed at the regional office in Missoula. Once that review is completed, the deputy regional forester will act as the reviewing official to either reaffirm the decision to close the trails to mountain bikes or modify the travel plan decision.

 

[Scott85]

I love riding mountain bikes, its just another activity that puts me outdoors. I am 100% opposed of letting mountain bikes being allowed in wilderness areas. Just like every other activity there are good stewards and there are people you want to dropkick of the side of a cliff. Back in the east there is a trail system that I was part of that would close down trails when it became wet and when it was dry they opened the trails. We cleared trails improves access and even opened up private land for other to enjoy, but when you take away the trial organization the trails become extremely worn with 10 different trails over an area instead of sticking to the original trail. Wilderness areas do not need the scars that are associated with mountain bikes.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Sytes:

Why not cycles?

Merely a few months ago, you were arguing that designated Wilderness was not true wilderness due to pack bridges and grandfathered airstrips ... and now you are arguing for wheeled vehicles in the Wilderness!??

The resistance to mountain bikes being allowed on certain trails and in various areas does not logically conclude that user groups ("boots and cycles") are not collaborating, negotiating, and compromising. Your logic is skewed. The linking of various specific articles to show only what you wish to opine is not objective analysis, nor is it accurate in concluding compromise or no compromise. It certainly does not portray a realistic and accurate picture of all the entities who have been at the table working out multiple use on public lands. It seems you have been working bassackwards from your hypothesis to show only that which might support your assertion ... then attempting to garnish it with a corollary regarding the Utah element and PLT. When recognizing convoluted mathematical logic, my professor often used the term, "HOGWASH"!

 

[Nick_CO]

[QUOTE The case is much stronger that we haven't done a good job at all of designating lower elevation lands and there is a real lack of habitat diversity within the Wilderness Act. Again, a massive compromise that the wilderness advocates in 1964 conceded...a vast majority of the designated wilderness in 1964 had very little resource extraction value and a lot of it is higher elevation type habitat. Exactly why the Wilderness Act is often said to have a done a great job of "protecting rock and ice"...which isn't far from the truth.

Couldn't agree more. A few examples that come to mind are the Eagles Nest Wilderness in Colorado and the Sandia Peak Wilderness in NM. These are both islands of wilderness almost completely surrounded by highways, cities, and subdivisions. I'm glad both are designated wilderness but they are the definition of habitat fragmentation. Cyclists definitely benefit from the lack of low elevation wilderness, not sure why there are some so interested in the existing wilderness area trail systems since they weren't designed for bike use. Most of the trails I have been on would provide a pretty terrible experience on a bike.

 

[Mountainguide]

There should never be a compromise when it comes to wilderness, they need to stay wild. Cycles would just be beginning, it would open the door for other forms of travel. Then from there who knows what would be next. If you can’t handle hiking or riding that kind of country, then don’t go there. If you think wheels and motors belong in there, then stay the hell out, cause there’s plenty of people that like it the way it is. There’s a reason people who use wilderness areas use it, and it’s not so they can see bicycles on the trails. Again, if you think compromising this kind of country is a good idea, think again because you will see a lot of opposition from many folks who enjoy it just the way it is

 

[Sytes]

Straight Arrow,

My core belief is within the actual wording as signed by Johnson in '64. Shall I refresh your memory memory?

(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions

My query at the time related to the "permanent improvements" please do not intentionally misrepresent my position shared.

Back to the topic, man himself is a visitor who does not remain.

How do we "visit"? This is the question posed by those who support and those who oppose mtn bikes in the wilderness.

It's been established that mtn bikes cause less impact than the pack and ridden animals. With that, it becomes the vehicle used to "visit" this land.

I'm sure you are well aware of the late Democrat Senator, Frank Church.
Key sponsor of the actual Wilderness Act of 1964.
Key creator of the Land and Water Conservation Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Wilderness dedicated in his name for his true conservation history.

Are you also aware of his (Senator Church) statement of disappointment over opposition to the Church Wilderness Bill of 1977?

...it was not the intent of Congress that wilderness be administered in so pure a fashions to needlessly restrict its customary use and enjoyment. Quite the contrary, Congress fully intended that wilderness should be managed to allow its use by a wide spectrum of Americans.

It was in 1986 that bicycles we're banned by Republican President, Ronald Reagan.

I'm all about open debate, diving into the support and opposition of subjects. I'm frequently debating this very subject with my diehard co-workers and other friends who believe mountain bikers should have access to our wilderness areas. In the grand scheme, they have a valid point.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Once again you have applied a personal interpretation. He did NOT say "Congress fully intended that wilderness should be managed to allow its use by a wide spectrum of wheeled vehicles."

 

[Keeptrying]

Compromise now means I will whine incessantly if I do that get what I want and accuse the opposite side of being unfair and illegitimate.

Millions of acres bikers can ride but that's not enough. "I want more! Where's my stuff!"

How often do we see hunting videos now with e-bikes being used in areas closed to vehicle traffic? Constantly. As that tech increases it will only add to the problem. Already bad enough that atv people have no respect for the rules, now those who advocate for protecting vehicle free areas are driving motorized vehicles into them. Bunch of crap.

 

[Nameless Range]

Interesting article Sytes.

I’ve said this before, but I do not think bikes belong in wilderness. I also think there are certain wilderness study areas where they do not belong as well. Additionally, I think they need to be limited to designated trails. Off trail use should become illegal.

That said, I think there is an unnecessary rift growing between mountain bikers and those who are opposed to them in many places. In studying, attending public meetings, and commenting on the Helena-Lewis and Clark national forest plan revision, I saw incredible animosity between Montana’s largest Mountain biking groups and conservation groups that I am a member of.

The fact is, many wilderness study areas have become very popular for mountain biking. Shutting mountain biking out of those areas has and will create a lot of bad blood toward the very idea of Wilderness. Furthermore, the Montana chapter of backcountry hunters and anglers pushed for keeping mountain bikes out of areas that weren’t even wilderness study areas, through the creation of primitive use areas.

Very misguided in my opinion. Bikes don’t belong in a lot of places, but I see a lot of people conflating their impact on landscapes with that of motorized use, and it’s not even close. Collaborative large scale landscape conservation, like the Blackfoot Clearwater stewardship project is the way forward, not blanket obstruction of certain activities. A fine tooth comb is necessary.

 

[BuzzH]

Straight Arrow,

My core belief is within the actual wording as signed by Johnson in '64. Shall I refresh your memory memory?

My query at the time related to the "permanent improvements" please do not intentionally misrepresent my position shared.

Back to the topic, man himself is a visitor who does not remain.

How do we "visit"? This is the question posed by those who support and those who oppose mtn bikes in the wilderness.

It's been established that mtn bikes cause less impact than the pack and ridden animals. With that, it becomes the vehicle used to "visit" this land.

I'm sure you are well aware of the late Democrat Senator, Frank Church.
Key sponsor of the actual Wilderness Act of 1964.
Key creator of the Land and Water Conservation Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Wilderness dedicated in his name for his true conservation history.

Are you also aware of his (Senator Church) statement of disappointment over opposition to the Church Wilderness Bill of 1977?



It was in 1986 that bicycles we're banned by Republican President, Ronald Reagan.

I'm all about open debate, diving into the support and opposition of subjects. I'm frequently debating this very subject with my diehard co-workers and other friends who believe mountain bikers should have access to our wilderness areas. In the grand scheme, they have a valid point.

Sytes,

Just for the record, how many mountain bike groups, or for that matter, how many mountain bikes existed in 1977?

Try to keep it relevant...you're spinning your mountain bike wheels.

 

[Sytes]

Cheers Nameless. I'm mostly in agreement with you though I am supportive of the Sapphire/Blue Joint WSA's return the 60 miles of trails to mtn bike use. I'm personally on the fence over designated Wilderness Act protected areas.
The more I read on the original intentions behind the creators of the Wilderness Act of 64, the more I find a broader understanding of the use for modes of travel.
Lyndon Johnson's comment regarding bicycles -

The forgotten outdoorsmen of today are those who like to walk, hike, ride horseback or bicycle

I believe President Lyndon Johnson (whom signed the Wilderness Act) mixed with Frank Church's (sponsor of the Wilderness Act) quote,

..it was not the intent of Congress that wilderness be administered in so pure a fashions to needlessly restrict its customary use and enjoyment. Quite the contrary, Congress fully intended that wilderness should be managed to allow its use by a wide spectrum of Americans.

I believe it would be just that. ...to allow its use by a wide spectrum of Americans
As it is, it has become ...the needlessly restrict its customary use and enjoyment

 

[rtraverdavis]

One of the leading, if not THE leading character, behind the transfer of Federal lands to the state, Mike Lee. Why? To break the public hands position on our public lands and it's working - slowly but surely. This did not succeed though it generated support. His purpose.

https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/i...es-the-human-powered-travel-in-wilderness-act

So if mountain bikers can’t go tearing-ass through designated Wilderness, they won’t advocate for public land? I don’t buy it.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Discrimination as per the Sytes School of Law Fair Access Rule: Access to designated Wilderness areas and all other trailed landscapes may not be discriminated against on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, physical disability, age, or mode of transportation. This rule is enacted to apply to access by the most wide spectrum of Americans as determined by Professor Sytes and the Mountain Bikers of America Association, (not to be confused with the Green Decoy Pedalers of the Western States).